HIV/Aids and the Holocaust.

Today is HIV/Aids day.
Here in South Africa the topic has been especially relevant for a week or so.
Perhaps, as is well documented and known, our previous President Thabo Mbeki followed the views of denialists (debunked scientists who denied that HIV
leads to Aids). The delivery of ARV medicines was stalled (even when they were donated), and especially the prevention of mother-to-child transmission
was harmed. It was estimated that 300, 000 people died directly because of Mbeki's denialsim.
Some now want to charge Mbeki with genocide.
Some argue that genocide is not only a crime of "comission", but also of "omission". Others are calling for a non-punitive "Truth Commision" on
HIV/Aids, just to find out how botched science came to dominate arguments, and how we can prevent it from happening again.

I wish I could say a commission looking into the falseness of those claims was going to be a good thing. Maybe it will. Maybe American polito-science
has jaded me. However, I suspect that everything the last administration did will turn out to be wrong, and everything the current administration does
will be done right.

I only have a slight understanding of South African politics (though I will say I wish the US turned out as the framers of the Constitution expected
it would with as many political parties as exist in S. Africa!), but I find it hard to believe, unless an utter idealist is in office, that the
current powers that be are seeking truth rather than power.

The good news, though, is that, well, it seems excessively likely HIV leads to AIDS and a lot of people in South Africa are going to greatly benefit
from this.

However, with the little knowledge I have, genocide seems a steep charge. The guy or his advisers could have been idiots, or worse, like many of us
here at ATS who immediately dismiss what world powers say as lies because we know they just want our land and resources. Regarding that, the Bible has
something rather wise to say about such situations: "Test everything; keep that which is good." (1 Thess. 5:21)

Well one can talk about
-intentions
-results and their effects
There is no proof that Mbeki had genocidal intentions. So it is not the same as the holocaust (as a conspiracist I'm not convinced that he was not
controlled by people with genocidal intentions). About five years before AIDS (late 1960s-1970s), politicians began to discuss population control, or
what Kissinger called the removal of the "useless eaters".
I think AIDS proved how selective silence kills. From Reagan to Mbeki - the responses were hardly encouraging.

The guy who began this myth about HIV not causing AIDS pretended enmity with the man who "discovered" (created) the rotovirus.

However they were buddies who had worked together for this, working for the same company.
The denial was a deadly psyop, designed to divide and distract "conspiracy theorists" who could see that the official story of a lone African
catching this from a green monkey did not add up.

I think that when "conspiracy theory" itself causes mass death that one is looking at disinformation.
The few ministers who did speak on the issue said that they believed nutrition was crucial, and that Africans are under-nourished. However, they
created no good food distribution program, and garlic, beetroot and lemon juice just won't cure Aids. What they hide is the deliberate persecution of
doctors who attampted to hand out Nevirapine for mother-to-child transmission. This also occured in a context where previously top- standard hospitals
were falling into disarray.
Today I saw a province is still short on ARVs. Because of Mbeki, the mom has two children (dad dead from Aids). Now mum must choose: only one child
will continue ARVS - the other will die. Which one of your children will you choose to live or die?
As an update: the child who was denied medicine died.

"Ten years ago, the seeds were sown for one of the deepest human tragedies of post-apartheid South Africa. The seeds were sown by none other than our
very own president and his minister of health.

Together, President Thabo Mbeki and Dr Manto Tshabalala-Msimang questioned the scientific truth that a sexually-transmitted virus caused AIDS. It was
nothing less than state-sponsored AIDS denialism.

If the link was denied, one could overlook the devastating behavioural patterns that fuel the spread of HIV. If the link wasn’t proven, then there
was no need to roll out anti-HIV medicine.

The two leaders courted denialists and quacks from around the world, delaying the speedy roll-out of proven treatment, while death swept through our
cities, villages and townships.

Scientists say that well over 330 000 people died from AIDS-related illnesses during the Mbeki era – some of these deaths could have been prevented
by the timely and purposeful roll-out of life-prolonging anti-retrovirals.

But it’s not only scientists who knew the truth about anti-retroviral therapy. This Tuesday, 3rd Degree tells the very personal stories of mothers
and children who came to understand that denial was no way to treat the virus that ripped their lives apart.

To this day, ordinary people count the cost in their own lives of policy mistakes and the systematic undermining of the health sector during the Mbeki
years.

We ask: Should Thabo Mbeki and his administration be charged with genocide?
END"

To all those in South Africa who were affected: the isiZulu chorus of the Johnny Clegg lyrics to "The Crossing" always remind me:

Chorus: O Siyeza, o siyeza , sizofika webaba noma
(we are coming, we are coming, we will arrive soon)
O siyeza, o siyeza, siyagudle lomhlaba
(we are coming, we are coming, we are moving across this earth)
Siyawela lapheshaya lulezontaba ezimnyama
(we are crossing over those dark mountains)
Lapha sobheka phansi konke ukhulupheka
(where we will lay down our troubles)
[edit on 1-12-2009 by halfoldman]

Sad to think how the whole world has stood by and watched things, and how post-colonial leaders get away with murder because everyone's too scared to
be called "racists" - and I mean this goes beyond HIV/Aids.

Originally posted by halfoldman
. . . .
We ask: Should Thabo Mbeki and his administration be charged with genocide?
. . .
Sad to think how the whole world has stood by and watched things, and how post-colonial leaders get away with murder because everyone's too scared to
be called "racists" - and I mean this goes beyond HIV/Aids.

Have you ever read up about NSSM 200?

It was a document produced in 1974 outlining plans made by Kissinger et al to stop population growth. One of the methods specified was to withhold
food and aid to third world countries which did not achieve population levels.
A memorandum implied that more drastic methods (more drastic than starvation,) may also be needed. And now we have Obama's health Tzar posing in
front of a book he co-wrote on horrific ways of decreasing the world's population.
There is reason to believe America has used its aid programs to enforce compliance in other countries, and various organisations from the UN have also
been involved.

When a leader, whatever their character may be like, carries out a strategy that lowers the country's population, it could be worth looking
deeper.

AIDs was created to kill people.
The myth that AIDs is not caused by HIV was created to make sure AIDs worked.

There are many murderers involved here and I'd like to see them all rounded up.

Originally posted by Kailassa
There is reason to believe America has used its aid programs to enforce compliance in other countries, and various organisations from the UN have also
been involved.

While it could be perceived that way, I think there's more to it. If you're sending food to a nation, and that nation's government is not only
preventing the food from getting to those who need it, but using it to support efforts against the nation sending food, you stop sending the food.
It's not helping anyone but an enemy government.

An analogy would be sending food into World War II Germany and Poland with the intention of that food getting to the concentration camps. It's not
going to -- the food would go to the army fighting the Allies.

An extreme example, but extreme to illustrate what might be more subtle in today's political climate. While most African nations would be about as
bothersome as a bee were they to go to war with the US or UN, it still wouldn't make sense to send them food if they're not going to give it or
allow it to be distributed to those who need it most.

Then there's also the unfortunate reality that a nation is looking to its own interests first, and if they have to choose between sending supplies to
a nation that has a resource they need and one that doesn't, they're going to choose the one that does. Not the one in most need. Unfortunately,
today, most central and many north African nations fall into that category.

Originally posted by Kailassa
There is reason to believe America has used its aid programs to enforce compliance in other countries, and various organisations from the UN have also
been involved.

While it could be perceived that way, I think there's more to it. If you're sending food to a nation, and that nation's government is not only
preventing the food from getting to those who need it, but using it to support efforts against the nation sending food, you stop sending the food.
It's not helping anyone but an enemy government.

If you read the NSSM 200 you'll see that there was a detailed plan drawn up to do exactly that.

The project was set in motion by President Nixon. Its recommendations were signed by President Ford, who agreed to the program's implementation.

This program has never been criticised or repudiated by any American President or foreign policy advisor.

Publicly criticized. Sadly, there have been many plans drawn up like this, and circumstances have taken place that have reflected those plans. One
example would be Thomas Jefferson's plan to eradicate the Indian population here in the US. His plan consisted of pushing them west until they either
embraced European culture and behaviors, are moved completely out of the way of good land European settlers wanted, or are eradicated.

Exactly that has taken place, for the most part, but not by Jefferson's doing. Nor his plan, as it was revamped by others, such as Jackson who just
liked the idea of kicking em our or killin' em, and when one tribe got the Supreme Court to rule that they could keep their land, Jackson said,
"then let them enforce it" as he militarily moved against them anyway.

Replying to collective posts: South Africa does not require food Aid at present, or historically. Very few areas in Africa actually need food Aid.
What Mbeki wanted was to use certain foods as medicine, or in lieu of medication.
Even the early ARV pilot programs have been great succeses. Many of these were in very poor areas with low food security.
Nobody here is really starving, except for the Zimbabwean refugees, who sometimes look pitiful.

Originally posted by Kailassa
The guy who began this myth about HIV not causing AIDS pretended enmity with the man who "discovered" (created) the rotovirus.

However they were buddies who had worked together for this, working for the same company.
The denial was a deadly psyop, designed to divide and distract "conspiracy theorists" who could see that the official story of a lone African
catching this from a green monkey did not add up.

If the man you are referring to is Dr. Peter Duesberg, it was not he who pretended enmity to the other man of whom you most likely mean Dr. Roberty
Gallo. Gallo had been inclined to giving Duesberg high praise as the "golden boy" of retro virology until Duesberg began to question the HIV=AIDS
paradigm. Once Duesberg began openly publishing papers questioning the efficacy of the HIV=AIDS paradigm Gallo dropped all pretenses of enmity and
began a steady onslaught of character assassination in regards to Duesberg.

Gallo has been investigated for ethical questions on a number of occasions and was sued by Dr. Luc Montignier from France over the whole LAV v. HIV
fiasco where it was alleged that Gallo stole the LAV sample Montignier sent him and claimed it was an isolated retrovirus he called HIV. That both
the LAV and HIV retrovirus are identical in every way lends credence to Montignier's charges but the vast majority of AIDS organizations omit the
politics behind this and merely acknowledge that the LAV is identical to the virus Gallo claims to have isolated and so the name was changed to HIV.

The questions that are asked by esteemed scientists such as Deusberg, or Kerry Mullis who are labeled as "dissidents" and "denialists" simply
because they questions the validity of a theory, are valid questions and indeed under the strict rules of the scientific method, the notion of
disproving a theory is a respectable endeavor and more likely to advance the cause of any theory than it is to attempt to prove that theory. The
political terms such as dissident and denialist have no place in science and those scientists who have used their own professional understandings to
question a theory not yet proven should not be treated with such disrespect.

The belief system that advocates the highly toxic AZT cocktails as the only sure way to treat AIDS by way of attacking a retrovirus that has never
been shown to exist through pure isolation is, quite simply, a dubious belief system. That propaganda machines have worked overtime to promulgate
advocacy of toxic medicines such as the AZT cocktails is evident and for every web site that exists questioning the efficacy of the HIV paradigm there
are dozens of websites that exist solely to "debunk" the "dissidents" or "denialists".

The entire AIDS orthodoxy is predicated on sloppy and lazy generalizations instead of science. The orthodoxy continually refers to AIDS as a disease
even though AIDS is an acronym that stands for Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome! That's right, the illness known as AIDS is not a disease but
rather a syndrome that causes the body to become susceptible to a number of various diseases all of which existed long before AIDS ever did. The
actual scientific definition of AIDS has been redefined by so many different countries so many different times that this alone should give pause.
However, for many nations, including the U.S. the current definition of AIDS includes the reactive antibodies to the HIV test which means that in
order to have what is defined as AIDS one must be positive for HIV which means that HIV causes AIDS because anyone who dies from an immune deficiency
that does not test positive for HIV is not considered to have AIDS.

This circumlocution of language is a dubious method for defining anything but particularly in the world of science. Given that the toxic medicines
prescribed to handle the theorized retrovirus HIV do not cure people of this syndrome and can at best merely offer to prolong a persons life and given
that there was a long process of reducing the amounts of AZT in the medicines since in the early trials of AZT use it was undeniably the medicine that
was killing the patients, it is highly dubious that the current AZT cocktail actually extends a persons life.

The whole HIV=AIDS theory has never become a scientific law yet is amazingly treated as if it is. There may indeed be a preponderance of evidence
supporting the theory that HIV actually leads to AIDS, the problem lies in the fact that no one knows for sure exactly when and why that happens and
given this inefficiency the questions regarding HIV should be taken seriously and not treated as if they are some sort of political dissidents. This
is a matter of science not politics and the closer we adhere to the scientific method the closer we will come to actually finding a cure for AIDS
rather than spending billions of dollars on toxic drugs that do nothing to achieve that end.

I disagree about the lack of HIV - AIDs connection, but in general I avoid pharmaceuticals because they can often do harm.

However I'm not willing to agree these drugs shouldn't be used in Africa, because medical staff there believe they work, and I'm assuming (until I
know better,) that they know what they are talking about.

For sure, Aids is caused by sniffing poppers (gays) and not eating enough garlic, beetroot and lemon juice (Africans). What a nice, coherent
alternative view on Aids.
Strange in the first few months after testing positive I was a huge fan of the denialists. In SA the position is well summed up by Antony Brink.
The murky history of HIV/Aids, the political silence, even the denialsim convinces me that some conspiracy is involved. However, as far as the
denialists go - the people who followed them died.

For sure, Aids is caused by sniffing poppers (gays) and not eating enough garlic, beetroot and lemon juice (Africans). What a nice, coherent
alternative view on Aids.
Strange in the first few months after testing positive I was a huge fan of the denialists. In SA the position is well summed up by Antony Brink.
The murky history of HIV/Aids, the political silence, even the denialsim convinces me that some conspiracy is involved. However, as far as the
denialists go - the people who followed them died.

I worked at a drug rehab ('89-'90) where patients had no choice of doctor, they all had to see the one highly charismatic and cheery fellow who
advised them there was no such thing as the HIV virus. Many residents were infected and the had unprotected sex freely with the other residents. The
staff did not see it as a problem, as there was no HIV, so there was nothing to transmit.

Looking back I wonder if this was not part of a plan to dispose of druggies and street kids.

I think at that time such theories still had a degree of possibility. Even amongst scientist there was scepticism. However, most of that dissipated in
the 1990s (and with more effective treatments there was less reason to cling to a pipe-dream). By the time Aids-denialsim came to SA in 1998 it was
only defended by a handfull of people with scientific degrees.
The notable thing is that none of these mostly self-styled "experts" and vitriolic people will take up the obvious challenge: prove HIV is harmless
and publically inject yourselves with HIV-serum.

Ok after watching "House of Numbers" again and doing a little research on it, I found out that several of the AIDS denialists in the film who were
HIV positive and refused to take AZT, ended up dying from AIDS related symptoms.

So I'm wondering:

1. How do we know they didn't die of a self-fulfilling prophecy, like what might have happened to those who thought they were cursed by voodoo? Or
could the Illuminati have killed them for making their AIDS denialism public? Has anyone ever died from AIDS who did NOT KNOW that he/she had it?
That's the key question.

2. Why would a virus take 12 years to kill someone?

3. How can HIV be a virus if it can't be seen under a microscope? There's never been an invisible virus before right?

4. The two women in House of Numbers who died, Christine Maggiore and Kim Brannon, were not promiscuous and had monogamous relationships. So how did
they get HIV? It was never explained, either in the film or on websites about them. It was also not mentioned if those women's husbands were HIV
positive either. How could monogamous people get AIDS, but many promiscuous people don't?

When tennis pro Arthur Ashe got AIDS the media never explained how he got it either. Isn't that strange? Could these people have gotten it from
vaccinations, as part of an Illuminati/black op biological weapons program or conspiracy, as some claim?

5. How is it that Magic Johnson is still alive after 12 years? And how come boxer Tommy Morrison's HIV diagnosis was reversed? Did he bribe officials
to reverse his diagnosis so that he could live a normal life?

The way I see it, if HIV takes 12 years to kill you, wouldn't it be better if you didn't know about it if you had it? That way, at least you could
live a normal happy life before it kills you. Nothing could be worse than living under a death sentence for 12 years, while the government monitors
and quarantines you as a threat to society and take away your rights and privileges.

Thus, taking an AIDS test is like playing Russian Roulette. So why would anyone be dumb enough to take it? There's nothing to gain and everything to
lose. Even if you had HIV, wouldn't it be better if you didn't know about it so at least you could live a normal happy free life, and not be branded
with a death sentence which might result in dying from a self-fulfilling prophecy?

This brings up the key question again: Has anyone ever died from AIDS without ever knowing that they had AIDS? I can't find the answer to this
question anywhere. Answering this would shed a lot of light on the issue.

Thanks for replying to an old thread of mine, which in hindsight was not the best on the issue, and there have been many subsequent discussions
between the denialists (or as I term them, "rethinkers") and those who support mainstream science. Thankfully the rhetoric of the holocaust has
disappeared from public discourse in SA, where the supporters of the then government and the rethinkers accused AIDS activists of wanting to "poison"
the population with ARVs, and the activists and scientists accused the state of denying people proven medications due to their personal beliefs in
quack theories and pseudoscience.

Both the rethinkers and the mainstream scientists agree that Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) exists. They disagree on what causes AIDS and
on how the immune deficiency is acquired and on the prognosis of death without ARVs. Then there's a main schism between two schools of rethinkers: the
Deusbergians (HIV exists but is a harmless carrier virus that doesn't cause AIDS) and the Perthians (HIV doesn't exist).

1. The death of HIV-positive rethinkers from AIDS related conditions cannot be blamed on self-fulfilling prophecies, since these people never believed
that HIV causes AIDS. To me it's obvious why they died of these conditions: they had HIV and ignored the medical treatments because they were misled,
and hence they progressed to AIDS and died. Their rethinking leaders blamed their deaths on everything from stress to hidden alcoholism or popper use.
Former rethinkers who changed their minds and accepted medical treatments did not die of these conditions.
2. Many viruses can take a long time to kill people. One thinks of Syphilis (tertiary Sypilis can take 3-15 years to present, and up to 25 years to
kill), or chronic Hepatitis C (asymptomatic for decades).
A long asymptomatic period makes a virus very successful, because the infected person remains healthy enough to spread the virus to many others.
This is why people should test and know their HIV status, because if one tests positive (and further tests confirm the diagnosis) one can take
measures to prevent reinfection with another strain and to protect others from HIV infection. One can also go on necessary treatments to manage HIV
and reduce viral loads. AIDS can develop well before 12 years.
3. HIV has been seen under the electron microscope and photographed. www.avac.org...
4. More generally, one does not have to be promiscuous to get HIV.
Promiscuity does not cause HIV, it merely makes it more likely that one will have sexual contact and exchange body fluids with an infected person. If
two people are in monogamous relationship and one partner is infected it's likely that the other partner may become infected too (depending on whether
they use protection). Apparently Christine Maggiore had a former boyfriend who tested HIV positive, so he likely infected her.
Arthur Ashe contracted HIV from a blood transfusion during heart surgery.
At that time HIV carried a great stigma, and many celebrities did not disclose their status publicly, although the media speculated since the wasting
during the final stages of AIDS was difficult to hide.
Freddy Mercury famously publicly admitted his status a day before his death.
In SA it was common for doctors to write other diseases on the death certificates of people they suspected of dying from AIDS, often filling in one of
the secondary conditions that people develop due to the collapse of their immune system from HIV. This was done to spare the family scandal and public
stigma, and later it was also in line with the denialist policies of the health department.
So yes, people have died from AIDS without being diagnosed, especially in SA, although the families and communities often suspected what was wrong.
People dying from rare conditions first alerted doctors to AIDS, although it was once called different things like Gay Related Cancer (before it
became clear that non-gay groups were also infected and dying), or in parts of Africa people referred to it as "Slims disease", and even today in SA
people use euphemisms to describe somebody with AIDS (whether medically diagnosed or not) like "he's got the slow puncture".

The case of Tommy Morrison sounds interesting, although he's not known here at all.
From what is on Wikipedia the case sounds very confusing, but perhaps he had a false positive, or there was a blood mix-up. I'm surprised he didn't
have back-up tests after his initial diagnosis, which would be standard today. He has also been on medications that are known to make HIV loads
undetectable, so I'm not sure what tests he has subsequently used to support his claims.
False positives do happen, but it's far from playing Russian Roulette, since the percentages are very low, but there should always be a variety of
back-up tests.

It's well known that Magic Johnson is on ARVs, and that's why he has survived for a long time.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.